Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring?
Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring?
In the social capital literature a distinction is made between trust expressed in people in general, and trust in people who are known to us personally. In this article we investigate the frames of reference respondents make use of when answering two commonly used interpersonal trust questions. Half of our sample was administered a version which asks respondents whether "most people" can be trusted. The other half of the sample was administered an alternative version of the question, in which the object of trust is restricted to "people in your local area." Immediately after answering the trust question all respondents were asked to report, in their own words, who came to mind when formulating their response. Counter to the widespread assumption that these questions measure generalized trust, we find that a substantial number of respondents report having thought about people who are known to them personally. Furthermore, respondents who report having thought about individuals who are known to them also report substantially higher levels of trust than people who say they thought about abstract categories such as "people in general." Our results suggest that apparent differences in trust across question formats and groups within the general public derive, at least in part, from heterogeneity in question interpretation.
74-92
Sturgis, Patrick
b9f6b40c-50d2-4117-805a-577b501d0b3c
Smith, Patten
a4bae730-e2b6-4982-b3f7-b3b2d186d37b
2010
Sturgis, Patrick
b9f6b40c-50d2-4117-805a-577b501d0b3c
Smith, Patten
a4bae730-e2b6-4982-b3f7-b3b2d186d37b
Sturgis, Patrick and Smith, Patten
(2010)
Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring?
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22 (1), .
(doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq003).
Abstract
In the social capital literature a distinction is made between trust expressed in people in general, and trust in people who are known to us personally. In this article we investigate the frames of reference respondents make use of when answering two commonly used interpersonal trust questions. Half of our sample was administered a version which asks respondents whether "most people" can be trusted. The other half of the sample was administered an alternative version of the question, in which the object of trust is restricted to "people in your local area." Immediately after answering the trust question all respondents were asked to report, in their own words, who came to mind when formulating their response. Counter to the widespread assumption that these questions measure generalized trust, we find that a substantial number of respondents report having thought about people who are known to them personally. Furthermore, respondents who report having thought about individuals who are known to them also report substantially higher levels of trust than people who say they thought about abstract categories such as "people in general." Our results suggest that apparent differences in trust across question formats and groups within the general public derive, at least in part, from heterogeneity in question interpretation.
Text
ijporpublished.pdf
- Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
Submitted date: 11 September 2008
Published date: 2010
Organisations:
Social Statistics
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 67572
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/67572
PURE UUID: 9ade0894-ab8e-430e-ab3d-2447a3be8575
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 26 Mar 2010
Last modified: 13 Mar 2024 18:54
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Patrick Sturgis
Author:
Patten Smith
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics